Case law

Aurora Fire Insurance v. Eddy

55 Ill. 213 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1870

The court will not disturb their finding on any question, unless it appears clearly to be unsupported. … It would certainly be evidence to that, if to no greater extent, and it was clearly admissible.

In Re Marriage of Hall

404 Ill. App. 3d 160 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 25, 2010

With respect to the Anheuser-Busch Deferred Income Stock Purchase and Savings Plan, the parties agree to enter into a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)] providing for the distribution of fifty percent (50%) of the … Petitioner argues that the language of the marital settlement agreement clearly reflects the parties’ intent to equally divide all of respondent’s retirement plans that accrued during the marriage. We agree.

Illini Media Co. v. Department of Revenue

279 Ill. App. 3d 432 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 1996

We find the educational use was clearly established by the record. … If only the identifiable portion of a property is used for an exempt purpose, while the rest of the property is used primarily for a nonexempt purpose (or not at all), only the portion used for the exempt purpose qualifies

In Re Chicago Flood Litigation

176 Ill. 2d 179 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1997

Clearly, the economic loss rule applies to losses incurred without any personal injury or property damage. Moorman, 91 Ill.2d at 82 , 61 Ill.Dec. 746 , 435 N.E.2d 443 . … I note also that the burden of establishing entitlement to immunity, as an affirmative defense, is on the City.

Prazen v. Shoop

2013 IL 115035 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2013

It would be profoundly unjust to uphold the forfeiture in the present case where the statute clearly lists only two conditions for forfeiture and neither was violated. … In addition, plaintiff clearly “did not enter into a personal services contract with the City.”

Lombardo v. Reliance Elevator Co.

315 Ill. App. 3d 111 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2000

But the failures of the bank and the maintenance company do not establish a defense for WS against plaintiffs claim. Rather, they establish grounds for WS’s counterclaims. … The burden of establishing the qualifications of an expert witness is on the proponent of his testimony, and it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the witness has been qualified.

A. P. Green Services Division of Bigelow-Leptak Corp. v. Fair Employment Practices Commission

19 Ill. App. 3d 875 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 10, 1974

It should be noted that both Waters and King were qualified bricklayers and had experience in all types of brick work. … It was also established that none of them were black. James Corrado testified for A. P.

Citizens Valley View Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission

28 Ill. 2d 294 · Illinois Supreme Court · May 27, 1963

The Commission’s order is considered presumptively valid and cannot be set aside unless found to be clearly unreasonable or contrary to an established rule of law. (Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. … The Public Utility Act itself, section 55, states that “no certificate of public convenience and necessity shall be construed as granting a monopoly or an exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise”.

In re Petition for Naturalization of Todorov

253 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 17, 1966

The Examiner concluded that the petitioner had established his eligibility for naturalization and recommended that the petition be granted. … (emphasis supplied) Placement on the TDRL is clearly not discharge.

Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Bank One, N.A.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 19, 2004

The statements also clearly establish that the client's signature was notarized, yet they do not indicate that an actual assumption of the client's identity was necessary to gain the notary's endorsement. … We also point out that the documents clearly disclose that the attorney tendered the covenant not to sue bearing the client's forged signature and that the hospital tendered its check, but they do not establish that the notarized

Hamlyn v. ROCK ISLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN

960 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 21, 1997

The application form explicitly states: "WHO DOES NOT QUALIFY: [] Applicants whose sole disability is [] AIDS." … Cuomo, 743 F.Supp. 977, 996-97 (N.D.N.Y.1990), monetary compensation would most likely not have been available because of the defendants' claims of qualified immunity.

Beall v. Albert

159 Ill. 127 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1895

Minson’s testimony was not taken, and no presumption that he performed his official duty can be indulged, in the face of the clearly established fact that he disregarded and neglected that duty. … That any such change was made was not clearly proved, but there was evidence tending to prove that certain ballots had in fact been changed.

People v. Hunley

313 Ill. App. 3d 16 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 1, 2000

The degree of knowledge or experience necessary to qualify the witness as an expert depends on the complexity of the subject matter and the likelihood of error if the witness is not properly qualified. … To qualify as hearsay, an out-of-court statement must be offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted. People v. Rogers, 81 Ill. 2d 571 (1980).

Marlowe v. Village of Wauconda

91 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 22, 1980

Clearly, plaintiffs’ building would not meet that test. … It is well established that a post-deprivation hearing can satisfy due process requirements (Goffinet v.

Gabriel v. City of Edwardsville

237 Ill. App. 3d 649 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 4, 1992

It is clear that the supreme court in Marshall does not establish a bright-line test for determining municipal liability with regard to streets, parkways and sidewalks. … The jaywalking clearly brings the second emphasized limitation, "in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used," into play.

Smith v. Department of Registration & Education

170 Ill. App. 3d 40 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 1988

The trial court found that plaintiff had not established a protectable right to prehearing discovery or an inadequate remedy at law. … Based on our holding that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint, we need not address the Department’s contention that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

People v. Fifty Cases of Shell Eggs

198 Ill. App. 319 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 15, 1916

According to a well-established canon of construction, as it adopted the language of the Federal statute presumably with knowledge of the interpretation given it by the Supreme Court, it intended to use the language in the … part of filthy, decomposed, putrid, infected, tainted or rotten animal or vegetable substance or article,” and this seems to the court a wise provision, for it would certainly destroy the effectiveness of the statute if immunity

Hampe v. Hamos

917 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 2013

Thus, because Plaintiffs have failed to definitively establish that they are qualified individuals with disabilities entitled to bring this suit under the ADA, the Court must also deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment … Additionally, the evidence both parties rely on for these assertions clearly states that Plaintiffs’ medical conditions did not improve when they turned twenty-one.

Dominguez v. Park City

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: (1) whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct

United States v. Department of Revenue of State of Ill.

202 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 1962

The exemption accorded to non-governmental institutions operated for charitable, religious and educational purposes is not of recent origin, but is the continuance of an old and well-established public policy. … The rule of sovereignty was clearly recognized in the case of Kern-Limerick, Inc., et al. v.